DOCSLIB.ORG

1 the New Keynesian Phillips Curve

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 the New Keynesian Phillips Curve The New Keynesian Phillips curve: a critical assessment Gabriel Aidar* ABSTRACT Two main versions of the Phillips curve can be found nowadays in the New Keynesian literature. The first, which is called the “triangular model” (Gordon, 1997), is based on a inertial component, a given (and exogeneous) long-run NAIRU and supply shocks. This version of the Phillips curve was dominant, until the mid nineties, and present also in the New Consensus Model (Blinder, 1997; Taylor, 2000). More recently, the second version, the so- called New Keynesian Phillips Curve, which includes a forward-looking expectations component and another based on deviations from the current markup of firms in relation to its optimum value, has become more dominant. This specification for the Phillips Curve belongs to the New Neoclassical Synthesis model (Goodfriend; King, 1997; Clarida; Galí; Gertler, 1999). This paper evaluates both these recent interpretations of the Phillips Curve through a simplified model aiming to clarify the central theoretical foundations of these models. It shows the very special assumptions that are required to generate a unique NAIRU in the New Consensus Model and a single long-run equilibrium rate of unemployment in the New Neoclassical Synthesis. In both versions, the long-run neutrality of money are seem to be subject to different serious theoretical problems and, in addition, the empirical evidence does not really corroborate their predictions relating to the tradeoff between inflation and unemployment in the long-run. From this critical assessment of the neoclassical approaches to the Phillips Curve, the paper concludes in favor of a return to older non-neoclassical interpretations of the non neutral long-run Phillips Curve. * Graduated with master’s degree at Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and economist at the Brazilian Development Bank. The author wishes to thank, but by no means implicate, Franklin Serrano (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro), Fábio Freitas (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro) and Pedro Duarte (University of Sao Paulo) for helpful comments and suggestions. 1 1) Introduction Phillips (1958) found and later named the curve that describes the negative relationship between the rate of unemployment and the rate of change of nominal wages. According to Palumbo (2008), his work was mainly interpreted as an empirical exercise by the authors that followed the work done by Lipsey (1960) and Samuelson and Solow (1960). These authors, who were part of the so-called Neoclassical Synthesis, gave a theoretical explanation for the Phillips Curve (PC) based on an analysis of the labor market in terms of supply and demand curves. The neoclassical interpretation of the PC went further with the introduction of the natural rate of unemployment and the Expectations Augmented Phillips Curve by Friedman (1968) and Phelps (1967). In this context, the Monetarist School claimed that in the long-run the PC become vertical and, hence, any attempt by the political economy of manipulating the aggregate demand in order to reduce the unemployment rate below its natural level would only cause an acceleration of the inflation rate. The New Classical “revolution”, with Lucas’s defense of a vertical PC even in the short-run (Lucas, 1972), reinforced the view on the impossibility of the government to explore the tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. The “Keynesian” reaction, brought forward by the New Keynesian School in the eighties and nineties, tried to restore the tradeoff between inflation and unemployment and the non-neutrality of money in the short-run after Lucas criticized the “Keynesian” PC (Lucas, 1972). Nevertheless, this was done in the context of the long-run vertical PC based upon the existence of a unique Non-Accelerating Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU). Gordon (1997) called it the “triangular model”, once the inflation is explained by an inertial component, the unemployment gap and supply shocks. This specification of the PC is the one used in the simplified New Keynesian model known as the New Consensus Model (NCM) discussed, for example, by Blinder (1997) and Taylor (2000). Also in the nineties, it emerged inside the New Keynesian literature the so-called New Neoclassical Synthesis (NSN) (Goodfriend & King, 1997), which tried to combine the NCM and the microfoundations of the Real Business Cycle (RBC) School. In this new tradition, it is found a specification of the PC (also called the New Keynesian Phillips Curve (NKPC)) that claimed to have abandoned the relation between unemployment and inflation – replacing the unemployment gap by a mark-up gap – and introduced a forward-looking expectation component. 2 This paper will assess critically some of the theoretical foundations (or microfoundations) of both New Keynesian versions of the PC. It tries to build a simple model with the goal of showing which are the main features in both New Keynesian models that generate a vertical PC and a unique equilibrium rate of unemployment (or NAIRU). It is thus argued that the evolution of these models consists of a constant effort to adapt its microfoundations in order to combine the short-run non-neutrality and long-run neutrality of money – through the existence of a single equilibrium rate of unemployment – and to react to the theoretical and empirical puzzles faced by the New Keynesian models. Furthermore, the article tries to demonstrate, based on the work previous done by Stirati (2001) and Serrano (2007), that a unique equilibrium unemployment rate is not a trivial result for any model of the Phillips Curve, as argued by Stockhammer (2008). More specifically, this result stems from two assumptions: the exogeneity of the firms’ real markup and full incorporation of expected and/or past inflation in the Phillips curve. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a simple version of New Keynesian model that tries to conciliate rational expectations with a PC similar to the Friedman’s accelerationist version based on a unique NAIRU – the “triangular model” (Gordon, 1997). It is shown how the firsts New Keynesians use the combination of nominal rigidities and real rigidities in order to produce the same results of the Neoclassical Synthesis in the context of rational expectations. It is also discussed some puzzling empirical evidence to the “triangular model” and its New Keynesian reactions that discuss the validity of the model based on a single NAIRU. Section 3 addresses the microfoundation of the NKPC and its effort to build a model that is capable both to deal with the theoretical and empirical puzzle of the NAIRU model and to generate an equilibrium rate of unemployment. Section 4 summarizes the criticisms to the NCM and NSN models and highlights the difficulty confronted by the New Keynesian tradition of defending the neutrality of money in the long- run, through a vertical PC, and the tradeoff between inflation and unemployment in the short- run. Section 5 briefly concludes. 2) New Keynesian Economics and the Phillips Curve Lipsey (1960) and Samuelson and Solow (1960) are responsible for what is called the neoclassical interpretation of the PC (Palumbo, 2008). Before the neoclassical interpretation, the PC was predominantly seen as an empirical relation between nominal wages and 3 unemployment. Moreover, the explanation for the relation between these two variables was based on the idea that whenever the unemployment declined, workers’ bargaining power strengthened and, then, nominal wages tended to grow even before the economy reached the full employment. Lerner (1951), for example, argues that there exists a low full employment level – which does not correspond to the full employment of labor – below which the decline in unemployment can be inflationary. Additionally, there is a high full employment level – which is the “real” full employment level – below which the PC becomes vertical and the decline in unemployment provokes a hyperinflation. Indeed, these arguments can explain the non-linearity in the estimated PC and are very similar to the explanation found in Phillips (1958) that provides theoretical elements for his estimated PC. In short, this first approach interpreted the PC as an institutional theory of nominal wage determination, which is based on the bargaining power of the labor force (Palumbo, 2008). Nonetheless, the relationship between nominal wages and unemployment, presented in the first neoclassical interpretations of the PC (Lipsey, 1960; Samuelson; Solow, 1960), is derived from an analysis of supply and demand forces in the labor market. In other words, whenever the rate of unemployment is below (above) the equilibrium rate of unemployment – which corresponds to the full employment – nominal wages tend to increase because of excess demand (supply) for labor. In particular, Samuelson and Solow (1960) are the first ones to substitute the nominal wage rate of change for the price inflation. This interpretation of the PC was incorporated into the IS-LM model and became part of the Neoclassical Synthesis model. Whereas the IS-LM model dealt with the aggregate demand, the PC defined the aggregate supply and, hence, defined the menu of choice between unemployment and inflation. Specifically, there is a permanent tradeoff between inflation and unemployment that the political economy could explore manipulating the aggregate demand. Friedman (1968) and Phelps (1967) criticized the argument that the disequilibrium in the labor market would provoke changes in the nominal wages. They claim that an excess demand (supply) for labor actually cause an increase (decrease) in the real wages. In other words, if workers only regard the nominal wage in case of disequilibrium between demand and supply in the labor market, they will permanently suffer from “money illusion”. Therefore, in order to take into account the real wage, the workers have to form their expectations about future inflation, and this is a major change of the previous interpretation of the PC (Friedman, 1968). 4 The expectations augmented PC is the innovation brought forward by the Monetarist School.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nominal Rigidity and Some New Evidence on the New Keynesian Theory of the Output-Inflation Tradeoff Rongrong Sun1
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Nominal Rigidity and Some New Evidence on the New Keynesian Theory of the Output-Inflation Tradeoff Sun, Rongrong University of Wuppertal 2012 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/45021/ MPRA Paper No. 45021, posted 15 Mar 2013 06:19 UTC Nominal Rigidity and Some New Evidence on the New Keynesian Theory of the Output-Inflation Tradeoff Rongrong Sun1 Abstract: This paper develops a series of tests to check whether the New Keynesian nominal rigidity hypothesis on the output-inflation tradeoff withstands new evidence. In so doing, I summarize and evaluate different estimation methods that have been applied in the literature to address this hypothesis. Both cross-country and over-time variations in the output-inflation tradeoff are checked with the tests that differentiate the effects on the tradeoff that are attributable to nominal rigidity (the New Keynesian argument) from those ascribable to variance in nominal growth (the alternative new classical explanation). I find that in line with the New Keynesian hypothesis, nominal rigidity is an important determinant of the tradeoff. Given less rigid prices in high-inflation environments, changes in nominal demand are transmitted to quicker and larger movements in prices and lead to smaller fluctuations in the real economy. The tradeoff between output and inflation is hence smaller. Key words: the output-inflation tradeoff, nominal rigidity, trend inflation, aggregate variability JEL-Classification: E31, E32, E61 1 Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, [email protected]. I would like to thank Katrin Heinrichs, Jan Klingelhöfer, Ronald Schettkat and the seminar (conference) participants at the Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, the DIW Macroeconometric Workshop 2009, the 2011 meeting of the Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES) and the 26th Annual Congress of European Economic Association (EEA), 2011 Oslo for their helpful comments.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 3 E Version
    EUROPEAN NETWORK OF ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTES WORKING PAPER NO. 3/MARCH 2001 EUROPEAN LABOUR MARKETS AND THE EURO: HOW MUCH FLEXIBILITY DO WE REALLY NEED? MICHAEL C. BURDA ISBN 92-9079-319-8 © COPYRIGHT 2001, MICHAEL C. BURDA EUROPEAN LABOUR MARKETS AND THE EURO: HOW MUCH FLEXIBILITY DO WE REALLY NEED? ENEPRI WORKING PAPER NO. 3, MARCH 2001 MICHAEL C. BURDA* ABSTRACT Widespread concern over real effects of EMU is consistent with new Keynesian approaches to macroeconomic fluctuations, but more difficult to reconcile with a real business cycle (RBC) paradigm. Using a model with frictions as a point of departure, I speculate that nominal price rigidity in Europe is likely to increase, while real rigidities are likely to decrease, as a consequence of monetary union. This logic implies a new European macroeconomic regime in which monetary policy is increasingly "effective" in influencing output in the short run. Similarly, changes in the nature of real and nominal price determination are likely to increase the volatility of the European business cycle. Empirical evidence of increasing covariation of price inflation and declining correlation of wage inflation and real wage growth within EMU countries in the last decade is consistent with this conjecture. Calls for additional labour market flexibility, given the magnitude of what is already in store for Europe, may be unwarranted. JEL Numbers: E52, J51 Keywords: Euro, European Integration, European Monetary Union, monetary transmission mechanism * Humboldt University zu Berlin and CEPR. This paper was prepared for the conference on “The Monetary Transmission Process: Recent Developments and Lessons for Europe” organised by the Deutsche Bundesbank, Frankfurt, 25-28 March 1999, and was subsequently revised in July 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Are Nominal Wages Downwardly Rigid, but Less So in Japan? an Explanation Based on Behavioral Economics and Labor Market/Macroeconomic Differences
    Why Are Nominal Wages Downwardly Rigid, but Less So in Japan? An Explanation Based on Behavioral Economics and Labor Market/Macroeconomic Differences Sachiko Kuroda and Isamu Yamamoto In this paper, we survey the theoretical and empirical literature to investi- gate why nominal wages can be downwardly rigid. Looking back from the 19th century until recently, we first examine the existence and extent of downward nominal wage rigidity (DNWR) for several countries. We find that (1) nominal wages were flexible in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, but (2) nominal wages were downwardly rigid in almost all the industrialized countries in the second half of the 20th century, although (3) the extent of DNWR varied from country to country. Next, we use a behavioral economics framework to explain the reasons for DNWR. We also explain why the existence and extent of DNWR varied between time periods and/or from country to country, focusing on differences in the labor market characteristics (such as labor mobility and employment protection legislation) and in the macroeconomic environment (such as economic growth and inflation), which can alter employees’ and firms’ perceptions toward nominal wage cuts. Keywords: Downward nominal wage rigidity; Behavioral economics; Labor mobility; Employment protection legislation; Inflation rate; Indexation JEL Classification: E50, J30, N30, Z13 Sachiko Kuroda: Associate Professor, Hitotsubashi University (E-mail: [email protected]) Isamu Yamamoto: Associate Professor, Keio University (E-mail: [email protected]) The authors would like to thank Professors Steinar Holden (University of Oslo) and Fumio Ohtake (Osaka University), the participants at the third modern economic policy research conference, and the staff at the Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, the Bank of Japan (BOJ), for their valuable comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Downward Nominal Wage Rigidity in the United States During and After the Great Recession
    Finance and Economics Discussion Series Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C. Downward Nominal Wage Rigidity in the United States During and After the Great Recession Bruce C. Fallick, Michael Lettau, and William L. Wascher 2016-001 Please cite this paper as: Fallick, Bruce C., Michael Lettau, and William L. Wascher (2016). “Downward Nominal Wage Rigidity in the United States During and After the Great Recession,” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2016-001. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, http://dx.doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2016.001. NOTE: Staff working papers in the Finance and Economics Discussion Series (FEDS) are preliminary materials circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. The analysis and conclusions set forth are those of the authors and do not indicate concurrence by other members of the research staff or the Board of Governors. References in publications to the Finance and Economics Discussion Series (other than acknowledgement) should be cleared with the author(s) to protect the tentative character of these papers. Downward Nominal Wage Rigidity in the United States During and After the Great Recession Bruce Fallick, Michael Lettau, and William Wascher December 2015 *Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Federal Reserve Board, respectively. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Federal Reserve System or the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Our thanks to John Bishow and Morgan Smith for excellent research assistance. 2 Abstract Rigidity in wages has long been thought to impede the functioning of labor markets.
    [Show full text]
  • JAPAN's TRAP Paul Krugman May 1998 Japan's Economic Malaise Is First and Foremost a Problem for Japan Itself. but It Also Poses
    JAPAN'S TRAP Paul Krugman May 1998 Japan's economic malaise is first and foremost a problem for Japan itself. But it also poses problems for others: for troubled Asian economies desperately in need of a locomotive, for Western advocates of free trade whose job is made more difficult by Japanese trade surpluses. Last and surely least - but not negligibly - Japan poses a problem for economists, because this sort of thing isn't supposed to happen. Like most macroeconomists who sometimes step outside the ivory tower, I believe that actual business cycles aren't always real business cycles, that some (most) recessions happen because of a shortfall in aggregate demand. I and most others have tended to assume that such shortfalls can be cured simply by printing more money. Yet Japan now has near-zero short-term interest rates, and the Bank of Japan has lately been expanding its balance sheet at the rate of about 50% per annum - and the economy is still slumping. What's going on? There have, of course, been many attempts to explain how Japan has found itself in this depressed and depressing situation, and the government of Japan has been given a lot of free advice on what to do about it. (A useful summary of the discussion may be found in a set of notes by Nouriel Roubini . An essay by John Makin seems to be heading for the same conclusion as this paper, but sheers off at the last minute). The great majority of these explanations and recommendations, however, are based on loose analysis at best, purely implicit theorizing at worst.
    [Show full text]
  • Economics 314 Coursebook, 2012 Jeffrey Parker
    Economics 314 Coursebook, 2012 Jeffrey Parker 10 IMPERFECT COMPETITION AND REAL AND NOMINAL PRICE RIGIDITY Chapter 10 Contents A. Topics and Tools ............................................................................ 1 B. What’s New and Keynesian about “New Keynesian” Economics ............... 3 Institutions of price setting .............................................................................................5 Market structure and price adjustment............................................................................ 6 C. Romer’s Model of Imperfect Competition ............................................. 7 Household utility maximization .................................................................................... 7 Firms’ behavior .......................................................................................................... 11 Equilibrium ............................................................................................................... 12 Properties of the model ................................................................................................ 14 D. Nominal and real rigidities ............................................................... 15 Mankiw’s menu-cost model ......................................................................................... 16 Interaction of nominal and real rigidities ...................................................................... 17 Coordination failures .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Macroeconomics of Low Inflation
    GEORGE A. AKERLOF Brookings Institutionand Universityof California, Berkeley WILLIAM T. DICKENS Brookings Institution GEORGE L. PERRY Brookings Institution The Macroeconomics of Low Inflation THE CONCEPT of a natural unemployment rate has been central to most modern models of inflation and stabilization. According to these models, inflation will accelerate or decelerate depending on whether unemployment is below or above the natural rate, while any existing rate of inflation will continue if unemployment is at the natural rate. The natural rate is thus the minimum, and only, sustainable rate of unemployment, but the inflation rate is left as a choice variable for policymakers. Since complete price stability has attractive features, many economists and policymakers who accept the natural rate hypoth- esis believe that central banks should target zero inflation. We question the standard version of the natural rate model and each of these implications. Central to our analysis is the effect of downward nominal wage rigidity in an economy in which individual firms expe- rience stochastic shocks in the demand for their output. We embed these features in a model that otherwise resembles a standard natural rate model and show there is no unique natural unemployment rate. Rather, the rate of unemployment that is consistent with steady inflation We would especially like to thankNeil Siegel, JustinSmith, andJennifer Eichberger for invaluableresearch assistance. We are also gratefulto PierreFortin, HarryHolzer, and ChristinaRomer for providingus with data, and to John Baldwin, Paul Beaudry, Bryan Caplan, BradfordDe Long, Erica Groshen, Peter Howitt, ShulamitKahn, Ken- neth McLaughlin, Craig Riddell, David Romer, Paul Romer, Charles Schultze, Lars Svensson, Robert Solow, and Michael Wolfson for their help and comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Policy and Business Activity 1St Cycle, 3Rd Year, 2Nd Semester “Licenciaturas” in Economics and in Management, Opti
    Economic Policy and Business Activity 1st cycle, 3rd year, 2nd semester “Licenciaturas” in Economics and in Management, optional for Finance and Applied Mathematics ISEG, 2016-2017 [email protected] 1. Introduction 2. The whys and hows of public intervention 3. Evaluating public policies 4. The limits of economic policy 5. Living with interdependences: an updated view READINGS Readings (Practical Classes) Text 1 • OECD (2011), Evolving Paradigms in Economic Policy Making, OECD at 50: OECD Economic Outlook, Vol. 2011/1, pp. 1-23 Text 2 • Thomas J. DiLorenzo (1996), The Myth of Natural Monopoly, The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 9, nº 2, pp. 43-58. Text 3 • Friedrich von Hayek (1974), The Pretense of Knowledge, Nobel Lecture (December, 11). (All these texts are included in the SEBENTA) First Preliminary Test: March 3, Texts 1 and 3 INTRODUCTION Three basic approaches The approaches are not without reciprocal relations BACKGROUND Laissez faire versus interventionism or perhaps the more appropriately in the framework of economic policy the “mix between state and market”. What economic policy makers do? • Set and enforce the rules of the economic game • Tax and spend • Issue and manage currencies • Produce goods and services • Fix problems (or pretend to) • Negotiate one with each other The first and primary function of the state is the “night watchman”? The Smith’s view “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.” (italics JRS) Quoted by E.
    [Show full text]
  • Essays on Nominal Rigidities, Bounded Rationality, and Macroeconomic Policy Mikel Petri Castro
    Essays on Nominal Rigidities, Bounded Rationality, and Macroeconomic Policy by Mikel Petri Castro M.Sc., London School of Economics (2015) Submitted to the Department of Economics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economics at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY September 2020 ○c Mikel Petri Castro, MMXX. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Author.................................................................... Department of Economics July 8, 2020 Certified by . Iván Werning Robert M. Solow Professor of Economics Thesis Supervisor Certified by . Daron Acemoglu MIT Institute Professor Thesis Supervisor Accepted by............................................................... Amy Finkelstein John & Jennie S. MacDonald Professor of Economics Chairman, Department Committee on Graduate Studies 2 Essays on Nominal Rigidities, Bounded Rationality, and Macroeconomic Policy by Mikel Petri Castro Submitted to the Department of Economics on July 8, 2020, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economics Abstract This thesis consists of three chapters about macroeconomic policy. In the first chapter, I study the empirical relationship between nominal rigidities and the real effects of monetary policy. Nominal rigidities lie at the core of macroeconomics. The empirical evidence suggests that prices and wages adjust sluggishly to aggregate shocks, while theoretical models justify why and to what extent these rigidities imply monetary non-neutrality. However, direct evidence on nominal rigidities being the actual channel for the transmission of these shocks is relatively scarce. I construct a highly disaggregated measure of regional price stickiness for the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Wage Rigidity: Measurement, Causes and Consequences*
    The Economic Journal, 117 (November), F499–F507. Ó The Author(s). Journal compilation Ó Royal Economic Society 2007. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. WAGE RIGIDITY: MEASUREMENT, CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES* Lorenz Goette, Uwe Sunde and Thomas Bauer Wage rigidity – the observation that wages cannot be adjusted downwards – has important implica- tions for labour markets and macroeconomic performance. Empirical evidence on the extent, causes and consequences of wage rigidity on the individual level is relatively scant, however. This Feature presents articles that apply a new methodology to estimate the incidence and extent of nominal and real wage rigidity among the employed in three major European countries (Germany, Italy and Great Britain). The results document the pervasiveness of nominal and, particularly, real wage rigidity in different institutional and economic environments, and a recent decline in real wage rigidity. The responsiveness of wages to the economic environment shapes labour market outcomes in important ways. If wages exceed the market clearing level and are rigid downwards, i.e., do not adjust in order to equilibrate supply and demand, involuntary unemployment can arise. Wage rigidities also have been identified as important determinants of the cyclical adjustment dynamics of output, as well as vacancies and unemployment that are difficult to rationalise with models with flexible wages.1 Despite the important consequences of wage rigidities, surprisingly little is known empirically about their extent and their measurement. Nor is there a consensus in the empirical literature about what renders wages rigid, and to what extent rigid wages affect real outcomes like unemployment.
    [Show full text]
  • Downward Wage Rigidity and Wage Restraint
    Downward Wage Rigidity and Wage Restraint Martin Wolf∗ May 2018 Abstract The combination of downward nominal wage rigidity and pegged exchange rate creates an externality which leads to excessive wage inflation (Schmitt-Groh´eand Uribe, 2016). This paper reexamines this result assuming that wage setters are forward looking, hence endogenously restrain wage increases facing downward wage rigidity, as in Elsby(2009). In this case, the economy can be characterized by either excessive wage inflation or excessive wage moderation: while wages increase too sharply following demand shocks, they increase too modestly following technology shocks in the tradable sector. Applying the model to euro area countries, I document excessively high wage inflation rates in the euro periphery, but excessively low rates in the euro core, in the pre-crisis period. Keywords: downward nominal wage rigidity, currency peg, unemployment, euro crisis, unit labor costs, real exchange rate, wage restraint JEL-Codes: E24, E32, F41 ∗University of Vienna. Email: [email protected]. This paper has been awarded the Fundaci´onRam´on Areces award of the Spanish Economic Association (SAEe). It is based on the first chapter of my dissertation at the University of Bonn. I am extremely grateful to my advisors Gernot M¨uller,Gianluca Benigno and Keith Kuester for their constant feedback and support. I thank my discussants Harris Dellas, Gabriel Fagan and Ida Hjortsoeand and participants at the CESifo Summer Insitute 2017 in Venice, the IM-TCD 2017 conference at Trinity College Dublin, the ESSIM 2018 in Oslo and various workshops for useful comments. I thank in particular Javier Bianchi, Giancarlo Corsetti, Philip Lane, Matthias Meier, Paul Pichler, Alexander Scheer, Gerhard Sorger and Michael Wicherley for useful suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • Slides Chapter 9 Nominal Rigidity Exchange Rates, and Unemployment
    slides chapter 9 nominal rigidity exchange rates, and unemployment Princeton University Press, 2017 Chapter 9: Nominal Rigidity, Exchange Rates, And Unemployment Uribe & Schmitt-Groh´e Introduction • Chapter 9 develops a theoretical framework in which nominal rigidi- ties result in inefficient adjustment to aggregate disturbances • The framework can be used in an intuitive graphical manner to demonstrate how nominal rigidities amplify the business cycle in open economies • The framework can also be used to derive quantitative predictions useful for policy evaluation 1 Chapter 9: Nominal Rigidity, Exchange Rates, And Unemployment Uribe & Schmitt-Groh´e Some Motivation: Peripheral Europe and the Global Crisis of 2008 Take a look at the next slide. • The inception of the Euro in 1999 was followed by massive capi- tal inflows into the region, possibly driven by expectations of quick convergence of peripheral and core Europe. • Large current account deficits and large increases in nominal hourly wages, with declining rates of unemployment between 2000 and 2008. • When the global financial crisis of 2008 starts, capital inflows dry up abruptly. Peripheral Europe suffers a severe sudden stop (sharp reductions in current account deficits). • In spite of the collapse in aggregate demand and the lack of a devaluation, nominal hourly wages remain as high as at the peak of the boom. • Massive unemployment affects all countries in the region. 2 Chapter 9: Nominal Rigidity, Exchange Rates, And Unemployment Uribe & Schmitt-Groh´e Figure 9.1 Boom-Bust Cycle in Peripheral Europe: 2000-2011 Current Account / GDP Labor Cost Index, Nominal Unemployment Rate −2 110 14 13 −4 100 12 −6 90 11 −8 80 10 Percent Percent 9 −10 70 Index, 2008 = 100 8 −12 60 7 −14 50 6 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Date Date Date Data Source: Eurostat.
    [Show full text]